Saturday, July 27, 2013

Squid and Octopus Coloration is Way More Complex Than We Said

There’s More to the Story, Much More

Imagine that you saw a magnificent mansion and when you asked where it came from, you were shown a box of fantastic tools. Perhaps those fantastic tools were used to construct the mansion, but they don’t exactly answer your question. What about the construction materials, the workers, the design, and the construction process? Those unanswered questions are like the recent findings of how squids and octopuses control their image and color. Action potentials travel down the nerve to the synapse near the skin of the squid or octopus, the neurotransmitter acetylcholine is released and it sets off a sequence of events in special cells. Special proteins are phosphorylated, they congregate, the cell membrane folds in on itself, water is transported, the cell’s osmotic pressure shifts and its refractive index is adjusted to cause a change in the reflected light. In short, it changes color.

Those are a fantastic set of tools, but they leave many questions unanswered if we’re wondering how the squid changes it color. Just for starters, how did the correct action potentials, at the right time, in the right nerve cells, become activated?

No, I’m not asking how action potentials are physically initiated. That’s a fascinating story in itself, but it is just another tool. What I’m asking is, how was it decided when and where to set off action potentials?

Somehow there must be the correct neural processing that takes as input the environmental situation or challenge, interprets that information, and formulates the appropriate neuron firing strategy. That is yet another layer of complexity on the squid and octopus coloration story.

As unlikely as evolution is when considering the tools of coloration control, its astronomically low probability takes another plunge when we add this neural processing requirement. It is yet another reason why the “evolution is a fact” claim does not come from science.

Well you should watch some of the videos of octopuses changing color, such as when it turns black in an instant when confronted with a predator. It has some pretty sophisticated neural processing to formulate such responses.

That you don't see the difference between CH's question ( about why an immediate one-time neural response happens), as compared to (why a celestial event so regular that you can figure out when they all occurred for centuries ) does not speak well for your ability to discern the importance of events. It seems to indicate a mind so committed to a narrow perspective that the mind does not think clearly about the arguments of the other side.

"Good point. We have no idea whether the log probability is worse than -1000, -10000, etc. We can only speculate about the degree of absurdity. So as usual evolution is just fine."

That is hilarious! The degree of absurdity is absurd. Astronomically absurd. Can a duck ride a bicycle? If I would venture to say, "Of course not! Don't be ridiculous.".... would I then need to show the work too, didymos?

Excellent point..! If I see a parrot riding a bicycle, I don't even consider the possibility that the bird accidentally built the bike and the highwire, learned to ride the bike on the hirewire and then filmed itself doing so. The odds are so astronomically against it, -10000, -100000, who knows, who could calculate it? My guess is that there is a design intelligence behind that video

No, no Thorton. It's all about the science, baby. Cornelius doesn't care if evolution is true or not. I know it might seem that way given that all he ever writes about is how it's so obviously not and his employer requires him to deny common ancestry between humans and other life, but that's just your metaphysics getting in the way.

Therefore when we read of a mere mortal say: "We are still left with the unabating need to explain evolutionary changes in systems that have the operational integration characteristic of things we recognize as 'machines'." Frazzetta. "Modeling Complex Morphological Change in Evolution"

What's with the "worldview" crap that you thumpers regularly excrete? It's just more of the black and white, 'you're either with us or agin us 100%' BS that you god zombies thrive on and try to force on everyone else. To you, absolutely everything depends on a person's so-called "worldview", and of course if their so-called "worldview" doesn't match yours to a very close degree then they're wrong, wrong, wrong, and evil, evil, evil!

And WHY do you play SO MANY childish, dishonest games with words? The 'designer', 'intelligent design', intelligent agent', 'intelligent agency', 'worldview', and tons of others. Just say RELIGION, christianity, and that 'yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost-angels-did-it'. After all, THAT'S actually what you believe, isn't it? Did it EVER occur to any of you that you get lots of disrespect because you LIE and constantly try to DECEIVE people who are more than smart enough to see through your deceptive games?

I fail to see how using "quotes" like one would use "finger quotes" to sarcastically discredit what someone said, is supportive of an intellectual argument. I also fail to see the draconian intolerance by skeptics of evolution towards believers of evolution, or any claims they are evil. I also scratch my head at the general lack intellectual arguments in most comments by the Darwin Banner-men. At least Scott below attempted an intellectual argument,though dripping with condescension and largely directed at a Straw Man he created in the first sentence. If one uses the Ctrl F search function on the page, the first use of the word exhaustive is located in said sentence.

Yeah cornelius, what about the tools, construction materials, the workers, the design, and the construction process that your alleged designer-creator-god used/uses? Claiming that 'god-did-it' isn't anywhere near enough. Let's see the details!

First, you're implying that scientific theories should be exhaustive and leave no unanswered questions. However, you haven't explicitly argued for this or explained what is scientific about it.

For example, it's unclear how is this actually a realistic expectation. Nor have you given examples of other scientific theories that actually are exhaustive, in practice. IOW, apparently, you're making the assumption that the lack of an exhaustive explanation means evolutionary theory is not scientific.

Furthermore, "theory X is not exhaustive" is a bad criticism because it is equally applicable to all theories. So, it's unclear how you can even use it in a critical way.

This is in contrast to the theory of science in which answers to questions lead to even better questions, etc. Saying a designer did it merely pushes the problem into an inexplicable realm without improving it. To quote Popper on evolution…

[Darwin's] theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached. [Popper 1976, p. 172]

The current crop of ID creates the impression that design is an ultimate explanation, as we can only learn more about what the designer supposedly designed, rather than the designer itself. This is by design, as it permanently wedges a whole large enough to drive one's preferred supernatural designer.

Second, as we discover that organisms are more complex, you're designer grows ever more complex as well. After all, a designer would have needed to know which correct neural processing the octopus should take as input the environmental situation or challenge, how to interpret that information, and how to formulate the appropriate neuron firing strategy. And it would have need to know how to encode that information into the octopus' genome in a way that when it made a copy of itself, the resulting organism had those same features, rather than some other organism with other features, or an inviable organism instead.

IOW, unless you're suggesting octopi appear out of thin air, the origin of their biological features *is* that knowledge, which is stored in their genome. As such, the question becomes, what is the origin of that knowledge?

What is the likelihood that some designer, "just was", complete with all of the knowledge necessary to build all that complexity, encoded it into a genome and enable the organism to make copies of itself with all of that same complexity? Why doesn't these observations of complexity lead you to conclude your designer even more unlikely?

As I've pointed out before, we cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory framework. Specifically, in your case, you've framed them in the conception that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources.

Again, you haven't argued for this. Nor have you indicated where or how this is a requirement of scientific theories.

Of course, as always, feel free to deny that you actually hold this conception of knowledge and/or point out where I got it wrong. Please be specific.

Scott: What is the likelihood that some designer, "just was", complete with all of the knowledge necessary to build all that complexity, encoded it into a genome and enable the organism to make copies of itself with all of that same complexity?

But that's just one organism. What is the likelihood that some designer "just was", complete with the knowledge necessary to build copies of all organisms, present and extinct?

Furthermore, what is the likelihood said designer, who supposedly possessed this knowledge as you're implying, would only give just a specific few aquatic organisms this color change feature, rather than all of them?

What is the likelihood that said designer, having possessed the knowledge to create all of the organisms - present and extinct - would just so happen to create the least complex first and create the most complex, figuratively, in the last few minuets of the game?

Why wouldn't this be just as serendipitous and heroic?

To be crystal clear, I do not think likelihood or probability is valid unless the process is random and you know all the possible outcomes. Specifically, it's only useful when you're working inside an existing theory.

Again, we cannot only extrapolate observations without putting them into some kind of explanatory theory, regardless of how shallow, poorly criticized or parochial.

So, apparently, you're working from some specific theory about designers which you have yet to explicitly disclose, such as they are simple, etc.

Nic, here's your opportunity to explain where, when, and how your chosen, so-called god came to be. Was it designed-created by some other designer-creator-god? Did it just POOF into existence? Did it evolve after being designed-created or after POOFING into existence?

Was your chosen, so-called god the first so-called god that people imagined and promoted? Was it the second, third, fourth, one hundreth........?

Is there any evidence that shows that your chosen, so-called god actually exists and that it is not just one of the many spontaneously invoked invisible creator gods of primitive peoples?

twt, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. God created the temporal universe. He is before the boundaries of time you and I would think within. Very different from, say, the way you faithfully believe life and billions of functional biological processes poofed into existence.

God's Word was also perverted and ignored from the beginning, which is explained to us in Genesis. God didn't send the Flood for no reason. It was because man denied Him and turned to wickedness en masse. And so it was with Babylon when he scattered man across the world.

In this respect, what we will find the most archeological evidence of is the same type of idolatry, sex-worship, sun and moon worship, animal worship, serpent worship... generally consistent themes that we find the world over in the myriad of false religions, which are derived from Nimrod's Babylon that the true God scattered. So this way we see that the false gods, most lain wasted and forgotten, is a kind of evidence for the true God of the Bible.

I distinctly remember TalkOrigins having sections including statements such as "... It would be puzzling for a designer to do it this way..." and variations of. I can only assume these have been edited.

I distinctly remember TalkOrigins having sections including statements such as "... It would be puzzling for a designer to do it this way..." and variations of. I can only assume these have been edited.

Bullspit. The 29 Evidences article not once, not ever had as as reasoning "God wouldn't do it that way".

You can use the internet Wayback Machine and check earlier archived versions for yourself.

Bottom line - you got caught in a pretty egregious lie, and are now trying to cover your ass. A little late for that now I'm afraid.

lifepsy, you said all that religious stuff as though it's real, but it's just nonsensical fairy tale gibberish.

It's interesting that you thumpers claim that your 'perfect, all knowing, all powerful God specially created man in his image' but that 'man' denied 'God', perverted and ignored 'his' word from the beginning, and turned to wickedness en masse.

So, 'God' specially created a species/population of incorrigible, sinful, jealous, petty, murderous, amoral/immoral, destructive, vicious, ungrateful brats. Hey, now that I think about it, that does sound just like 'the image of God'.

And what is it with you god pushers and your obsession with whether or how people have sex? You're just jealous of the sexy fun they're having, aren't you? You've been programmed to believe that abstinence and suffering is noble and that fun (especially fun sex) is wicked and icky, haven't you?

Isn't it way past time for you to freely live the only life you'll ever have and stop obsessing about what other people do in their bedrooms, on car backseats, or on a blanket in a meadow? You're not getting any younger.

I'm not familiar with every thread on this site, but if this thread is indicative of the rest, the culture of debate on this blog is embarrassing. The only reasonable posts on this thread, by any objective unbiased measure, are those by CH, JDH, and lifespy. Regardless of which side of the debate their arguments support, the arguments themselves are free of ad hominem attacks, insults, sarcastic use of quotation marks, CAPITALIZED WORD YELLING, and profanity. The offenders display such a generally sarcastic, disrespectful, and juvenile disposition that I would think it difficult for participants on either side take the comments or the commenters seriously. I think most of the offenders here will find the YouTube comment threads on these subjects to be a more comfortable niche. Trolling there will generate more of the kind of feedback they are seeking.

Thorton, to clarify, you are attempting to refute my assertion that, on this thread, the comments posted by many of those who seem to support ToE are largely comprised of ad hominem attacks, insults, sarcastic use of quotation marks, CAPITALIZED WORD YELLING, and profanity and display [...] a generally sarcastic, disrespectful, and juvenile disposition by responding to my claim using the very methods my claim asserts. Though, by definition, your reply cannot be appropriately categorized as a refutation, or rebuttal. It is simply an anti-intellectual contradiction, as I stated before, more suited in content and character for YouTube. Your reply in and of itself is highly supportive of my position as it closely parallels the comments and replies on this thread targeted by my claims.

A refutation or rebuttal to a claim will include what is known as an argument. According to Atheism.About.com, an argument can be defined as a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition. ...an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. and/or An argument is a deliberate attempt to move beyond just making an assertion. When offering an argument, you are offering a series of related statements which represent an attempt to support that assertion — to give others good reasons to believe that what you are asserting is true rather than false. An argument should be free of logical fallacies including forms ridicule.

Lets examine my original assertions and bolster them to the status of an argument and logically guide one to my conclusions. Though I contend that since my assertions were made within the thread containing the context, observable evidence and subject material at which my accusations were directed, the immediate empirical backing allow for any reasonable party (in a legal sense) coming across my assertions to arrive at a similar conclusion or, at a minimum, qualify the assertions without an exhaustive compilation of supporting evidence. Since, however, the reply was sarcastic and juvenile, inclusive of ad hominem, and straw man fallacies as well as appeals to spite and ridicule in an effort to discredit my position without actually providing evidence, I find it prudent to adequately support my position lest I be accused of a nefarious withholding evidence. Again, I argue that the nature of the claims are not controversial nor technical in nature, and are directed at comments/statements/replies that are readily available for scrutiny by any participant.

What's with the "worldview" crap that you thumpers regularly excrete?... Just say RELIGION, christianity, and that 'yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost-angels-did-it'.

Straw Man: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

ScottJuly 28, 2013 at 8:21 AMFirst, you're implying that scientific theories should be exhaustive and leave no unanswered questions.

ThortonJuly 27, 2013 at 8:47 PM

ZOMG IT'S SO COMPLEX!!!! DON'T YOU SEE HOW COMPLEX IT IS?? IT'S AMAZINGLY COMPLEX!!! DIDN'T YOU HEAR ME?? I SAID IT'S COMPLEX!! IT'S MIND-BOGGLINGLY COMPLEX!!! therefore MY GAWDDIDIT!! Does that about sum it up CH?

Poisoning the Well1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

The comment below warrants a tag of poisoning the well because it is asserts that because CH is paid by his employer, who has alleged interests that CH cannot contradict of his own free will, the claims (be they true or false) and arguments put forth by CH must be false.

didymosJuly 27, 2013 at 9:09 PM

I know it might seem that way given that all he ever writes about is how it's so obviously not and his employer requires him to deny common ancestry between humans and other life,[…]

Many of these comments also roll under several other versions of the ad hominem attack including:

Appeal to Ridicule1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).2. Therefore claim C is false.

Appeal to Spite1. Claim X is presented with the intent of generating spite.2. Therefore claim C is false (or true)

As a side note, I would like to address Thorton's emotionally charged and pointed accusation of lying by another poster. This is another example illustrating my description of the culture of debate, at least by those on a particular side, on this thread.

Thorton July 29, 2013 at 7:23 AM

lifepsy, on another thread you said this about Douglas Theobald's "29 Evidences for macroevolution"lifepsy "One of their primary arguments, often used under the "Potential Falsification" criteria, is "God Wouldn't do it this way" !This is an obvious lie and you know it. Theobald's article doesn't mention God anywhere, not even once…

lifepsyJuly 29, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I distinctly remember TalkOrigins having sections including statements such as "... It would be puzzling for a designer to do it this way..." and variations of. I can only assume these have been edited.

ThortonJuly 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

lifepsyI distinctly remember TalkOrigins having sections including statements such as "... It would be puzzling for a designer to do it this way..." and variations of. I can only assume these have been edited. Bullspit. The 29 Evidences article not once, not ever had as as reasoning "God wouldn't do it that way". You can use the internet Wayback Machine and check earlier archived versions for yourself.Bottom line - you got caught in a pretty egregious lie, and are now trying to cover your ass. A little late for that now I'm afraid.

In the exchange above, Thorton accuses lifespy of an "obvious," and "pretty egregious" lie. Though, when the initial accusation, resulting defense by lifespy, and follow-up accusative statement(s) by Thorton, is analyzed, the accusation is targeted at a straw man version of the original claim. The claim was a quotation that was intended to represent the overarching argument of “bad design" as evidence against design by a designer. This argument is often framed as "X has a perceived or alleged flaw or inefficiency in its structure or performance. Therefore, X cannot have been designed" or "X displays one or more characteristics of perceived bad design, God would not have done it this way. Therefore, X was not designed by God." It is a common subtopic of a larger debate. It does not appear the intent of the claim was to assert that "God" was mentioned in the article. It is common for arguments, either for or against a designer, to imply or be perceived to imply that God is the aforementioned designer. In this case, in accusing the other party of lying, it is assumed by the accuser that the quote was direct rather than indirect, with an intention of purposefully misleading the audience. A reasonable observer, familiar with the debate at a basic level, would immediately recognize the spirit of comment by lifespy and thus understand the quote to be indirect. When combined with the response to the original accusation by lifespy, there is enough evidence to conclude that lifespy was not lying. An apt example of an indirect or general quote would be the oft used "GAWDIDIT" or some version, where it is not a direct quote, but attempts to capture an overarching position whether true or false. By Thorton's own standards of truth, he toes the line of lying in his comment previously highlighted above and in the excerpt of said comment found below. The only difference between the words of the accused and the accuser below is the lack of quotation marks.

ZOMG IT'S SO COMPLEX!!!! DON'T YOU SEE HOW COMPLEX IT IS??[…] therefore MY GAWDDIDIT!! Does that about sum it up CH?

It is understood by the reader that this is a not a direct quote by CH or anyone else. None the less, it is intended to portray distorted "quotes" by those who do not support ToE. Note that CH, or anyone else, did not accuse Thorton of lying. Thorton's emotionally charged, multi-post accusation seems petty at best and slanderous at worst. I did not witness this level of baseless attack coming from lifespy, CH, or any of Thorton's opposition. Though, admittedly, I am not entirely familiar with this blog and the culture of debate found on a large sample of threads. I predict such tactics are used by both camps. However, on this particular thread, the use of such methods was grossly one-sided, and seemingly unwarranted.

Having established the unwarranted and false nature of the accusation by Thorton on the merits of the original quote alone, let us examine the actual verbiage of Thorton's claim and the article he so vehemently defended.

ThortonJuly 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Bullspit. The 29 Evidences article not once, not ever had as as reasoning "God wouldn't do it that way[empahsis and grammar original]."

This pointed claim is incorrect as this very class of argument is the core premise of two of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution; Prediction 3.5: Anatomical suboptimality, and Prediction 3.6: Molecular suboptimality.

Predicating a claim using alternative curse words does not add to the strength or validity of the claim. Bolding, CAPITALIZED WORD YELLING, and sarcasm do not add to the strength of a claim or argument.